From: george murphy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 21:35:25 EDT
Walter Hicks wrote:
> george murphy wrote in part:
> > ...........their purpose, which is more anti-"naturalism" than pro-any
> > particular alternative to evolution.
> Since when is the motivation of an advocate a measure of the
>validity of his idea?
Did I say it was? What I pointed out is that the primary "idea" being
presented - is negative -
i.e., naturalism is wrong (with disregard of the distinction between
metaphysical naturalism) rather than positive.
> I think that is precisely the point that many anti-science folks
>are trying to
> raise. Science is neat ,but it really rests on pure faith in naturalism.
> Scientists point to the many times it has worked in the past and
> that it should be accepted as a universal truth (ignoring all
>current problems, I
> might add). That is indeed philosophy, not science. Science itself
>only rests upon
> this philosophy lest it crumble. Why is it necessary to believe
>that science is
> some magical approach that can figure out everything about God's
>universe while God
> never interacts with His creation? That is surely theology.
Again you are failing to distinguish between types of naturalism.
> I think that the suggestion that this be discussed in public schools in a
> philosophy class is a fine one. Why would a theologian ever disagree with it?
Few schools below the college level offer classes in
philosophy. Maybe they
should but they don't. In any case, I certainly wouldn't object to
being taught in public schools under the rubric of comparative
religion, sociology, or
political science. But the opponents of evolution want it taught as
science, which it
isn't. Of course there is scientific controversy about how evolution
has taken place
but not about whether it has taken place.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Aug 29 2002 - 23:20:34 EDT